from the a-study-in-incompetence dept

As you may recall, when the federal district court in Nevada granted Marc Randazza's request to turn Righthaven's assets over to a receiver, for the sake of using them to satisfy the court ordered attorneys' fees in the Hoehn case, the court also ordered -- pretty damn clearly -- that Righthaven's principles, Steve Gibson and Raisha "Drizzle" Y. Gibson, appear in court on January 5th. Already, we knew that Righthaven had failed -- as required by the court -- to produce certain documents a week prior to this hearing (for which Randazza has asked the court to declare Righthaven in contempt). You may notice that the date on the calendar is now January 6th.

It's one thing to ignore opposing counsel. It's another to ignore multiple direct court orders, including one to appear in court. But... neither Gibson showed up in court yesterday. Nor did Righthaven's main lawyer: Shawn Mangano. According to Randazza, the judge then called Mangano who claimed that he "thought it was tomorrow" (but did not explain the failure to deliver the required documents).

This is pretty amazing. We've had people in our comments repeatedly asking about the January 5th deadline. If a bunch of our commenters can keep the date straight, can't the lawyer for the company being dragged into court? As I said, Righthaven's ability to do exactly the wrong thing at nearly every opportunity is stunning. And every time we think we can't be surprised any more, something like this happens. This is the most amazing study in incompetence we've ever seen. This is a company that failed to properly secure the copyrights it was suing over, chose not to use the DMCA's takedown procedures, often targeted questionable cases of infringement, sued people over clear fair use situations, used a completely bogus demand for domain names in the lawsuits it filed, has been accused of theunauthorized practice of law in multiple states, failed to list Stephens Media as an interested party as required by Nevada law (for which it was sanctioned), failed to file many documents on time, missed deadlines for certain important filings, failed to pay attorneys' fees owed, lost cases due not just to the failure to secure copyright properly but also to missing deadlines, had an appeal thrown out for failing to follow proper procedure... and, has been sued by their own process server for failure to pay its bills. And now this (and I'm probably missing some stuff!).

The judge has set a new hearing date for Monday, January 9th at 9am. I can't imagine that the Gibsons and Mangano could possibly think they can get away with missing that one, too -- but if you had asked, I never would have believed most of the things that Righthaven has done so far would ever happen in real life.

from the righthaven-just-looks-worse-and-worse dept

Another day, another story of Righthaven incompetence. The latest is that a process server that the company used, most likely for some of its hundreds of lawsuits against websites for supposedly infringing on copyrights, is now suing Righthaven for failing to pay its bills. The lawsuit, embedded below, is pretty straightforward. Legal Wings Inc. was used between May and October of 2010, for which it billed Righthaven to the tune of $5,670 -- not a particularly huge sum. According to Legal Wings, Righthaven simply never paid, despite multiple requests to be paid. What strikes me as interesting here is that I can almost understand Righthaven's recent efforts not to pay up the legal fees it owes, if you believe that the company is effectively out of cash and/or saving up its cash to fight the appeals. Obviously, there are reasonable arguments to be made that even that's bogus, but if we can grant that assumption, the recent refusals to pay make at least some sense.

But this involves a company that Righthaven used in 2010. That is, this all happened way, way, way before Righthaven's legal campaign fell apart. It happened many months before judges ruled that Righthaven didn't actually hold the copyrights over which it was suing. In other words, this was back in the time when companies were still paying Righthaven good money. The company was supposedly flush with money, from both an investment from Stephens Media as well as settlement cash from sites that just paid up rather than fought. And it still refused to pay a simple $5,670 bill. It really makes you question what the folks behind Righthaven were really up to all of this time...

from the you-knew-this-was-coming dept

This won't come as much of a surprise to anyone following the ongoing battle between Righthaven and Marc Randazza, representing Wayne Hoehn (Randazza is also representing other clients fighting Righthaven, but much of the "action" is in the Hoehn case). The latest is a filing (embedded below) for the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of the court for completely ignoring a court order from December 12th to produce certain documents to Randazza as part of the effort to collect the attorneys' fees that the court has already ordered:

Righthaven has failed to respect this Court's lawful order. On December 12, this Court entered an order granting Hoehn's motion to conduct a debtors examination in the presence of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 67). Righthaven did not oppose Hoehn's motion seeking a debtors exam, and therefore consented to this Court's entry of an order scheduling one (Docs. # 60, 64). At this time, there is no stay in place to inhibit the debtors exam from proceeding (Docs. # 56, 57).

In order to ensure his debtors exam was efficient, targeted and fruitful, Hoehn moved the Court to order Righthaven to produce certain documents in advance of the examination (Docs. # 60, 60-4). The Court granted this request by adopting Hoehn's proposed order, and instructed Righthaven in clear, unambiguous language, to produce to Hoehn all of the following at least one (1) week before the scheduled examination:

Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, vehicles, bank accounts, bank deposits, company securities, intangible intellectual property and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy this Court's judgment and writ of execution, including money owed to Judgment Debtor by others, and other information of the like;

and

Any and all information and documentation identifying purchases, transfers of funds, or other dissipation of assets from Righthaven to yourselves or any other third parties commencing on or about April 15, 2011. (Doc. # 67 at 2)

By obtaining these documents, Hoehn hoped to prepare for the debtors examination with specific, narrowly tailored questions about any unexplained or suspicious assets or transactions. Righthaven has refused to produce these documents, to discuss their production, or to even acknowledge that the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce these documents...

One week after the Court's order instructing Righthaven to produce the above-described documents, December 19, Hoehn's counsel sent a facsimile message to Righthaven's counsel inquiring about the production of those documents, as Righthaven had not contacted Hoehn about their production.... Righthaven's counsel had previously requested that all correspondence occur exclusively via U.S. Mail or facsimile, and Hoehn's counsel honored this request .... Sensing that Righthaven may not comply with the Court's order, Hoehn's counsel subpoenaed several banks doing business in Las Vegas for any financial records they may have for Righthaven LLC .... Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), Hoehn's counsel provided a notice of these subpoenas to Righthaven's counsel .... Since bank records were just a small portion of the documents the Court ordered Righthaven to produce, Hoehn's counsel specifically reminded Righthaven of its duty to produce these documents in advance of the debtors exam, despite the subpoena .... To the contrary, the subpoenas heightened the need for Righthaven's records, as they were needed were needed in order to check for discrepancies against the bank-issued financial records.

Having received no reply from Righthaven with respect to the December 19 letter or December 21 notice, Hoehn's counsel sent another letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile on December 26, 2011.... Righthaven's counsel did not respond to this communication.... After the close of business on December 29, 2011, one week before the scheduled debtors examination, Hoehn's counsel again sent a letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile and U.S. Mail, seeking production of these documents ... To date, Righthaven's counsel has not responded to this communication

from the that's-not-going-to-work dept

Looks like Righthaven has finally reappeared... filing an "emergency motion" in the 9th Circuit appeals court trying to prevent Marc Randazza from continuing to move forward in the Hoehn case, where (as you may have heard) Righthaven has been ordered to hand over various assets (and the company's righthaven.com domain is being auctioned off). Randazza has filed a response (embedded below) in which he goes back to bringing up Herman Melville's classic story Bartleby the Scrivener, in which Bartleby never does any work because "I would prefer not to." If that sounds familiar, it may be because Randazza used that line the last time Righthaven filed for an "emergency" stay in the same 9th Circuit Appeals Court... in the same case. That time the court rejected it, and as Randazza explains, there are tons of reasons to reject it again. You can read the entire filing explaining all the reasons that Righthaven's emergency filing makes no sense -- especially since it failed to bother to oppose many of the things it's now fighting when they were happening in the district court. However, the key reason is simply procedural:

While it would be far more satisfying to see this motion defeated on
substantive grounds, it fails cleanly as a matter of procedure. Rule 27-3(a) requires
the movantís counsel to make "every practicable effort" to notify opposing counsel
before filing an Emergency Motion. Righthavenís counsel failed to do so, and
misled this Court about his efforts to do so. Hoehnís counsel first learned of the
Motion by receiving it through the Courtís cm/ecf system .... Only after receiving the Motion did Hoehn's counsel receive a fax from
Righthaven's counsel notifying them of its intent to file this Motion

I used to think that Righthaven might make a useful law school case study some day, but now I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an entire class studying Righthaven in order to teach lawyers exactly what not to do in handling cases.

from the do-they-do-anything-right? dept

Righthaven has a pretty long history of totally screwing up. And in the last month or so, it's simply been not showing up at all. It seems both trends have continued. Righthaven had indicated that it was focusing much of its efforts on its appeals in the 9th Circuit appeals court, where it hoped to reverse its rather stunning string of losses. But, instead, it appears that it just didn't show up. In a short and sweet order today from the appeals court, its appeal in the case against Garry Newman was dismissed, because Righthaven "failed to comply" with an earlier court order:

Appellant has failed to comply with the courtís order filed December 14, 2011. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Ninth Cir. Rule 42-1. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

Amazingly, a big part of the reason Righthaven is even in this situation, appealing the Newman case concerning his website FacePunch.com, is that Righthaven missed earlier deadlines on the case as well. So it appealed... and now it's totally failed to comply with the earlier court order here too.

Righthaven seems to invent new and interesting ways to display incompetence almost every day.

from the place-your-bids dept

As promised last week, it appears that the auction of the righthaven.com has begun over at SnapNames. The auction will apparently run until January 6th at 12:15 PT. So if you were planning to take up a collection to buy it for yourself, start counting those pennies. There have already been a few bids, and at the time I'm writing this, they're asking a bit over $1,000.

from the start-the-bidding dept

The latest in the continuing Righthaven saga is that as part of the efforts by the court to hand over Righthaven assets to satisfy the court order for Righthaven to pay legal fees in the Hoehn case, the righthaven.com domain has been seized and will be auctioned off. While the domain is currently listed as being in the possession of Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza, Randazza says that it's actually been given to the court-appointed receiver, Lara Pearson, who is planning to auction it off. According to Vegas Inc.:

Pearson added Thursday, ďIf all goes well, I intend to put the domain name up for auction before the holiday break begins tomorrow, though I have not yet made a firm decision as to where the domain will be auctioned.Ē

So, get out your checkbooks if you'd like to own a piece of copyright trolling history...

from the good-luck-with-that dept

It appears that Righthaven's new legal strategy, after getting beaten down left and right by Marc Randazza, is to just stop responding to him or the court. Think of it as the "play dead" strategy. You may recall that last week, in the Hoehn case, Righthaven was ordered to turn over its own intellectual property to a receivership to settle the attorneys' fees owed to Randazza. While waiting for that to happen, there was a hearing (on Friday) in another case involving Righthaven and Randazza... and Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, simply did not appear. On top of that, he has refused to respond to any contact from Randazza and the other lawyers in his firm:

Attorney Mangano has not replied to any of my faxed correspondence -- a manner of communication he had previously requested I use in lieu of e-mail and telephone communication -- since this Court's December 12 Order granting the receivership order.

Basically, it looks like Righthaven is trying out a different sort of response to the various cases involving Randazza: it's just ignoring them entirely. I can't see how that ends well.

In response, Randazza is now looking to go after Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and his wife Raisha Y. Gibson, a/k/a "Drizzle." At this point, you have to get the feeling that the Righthaven crew has simply been so pummeled by Randazza that it's in a bit of shock. I wonder if Steve Gibson is still claiming that the courts know that Righthaven is "genuine" and is merely providing "guidance" to Righthaven competitors...

from the another-one-down dept

Righthaven just keeps on flopping. After Randazza Legal Group, in the Hoehn case, has continually tried to get further access to Righthaven's assets to satisfy the attorneys fees that Righthaven owes, the court has now granted Hoehn's request to appoint a receiver and begin to assign Righthaven's intellectual property. Of course, that raises questions about what IP Righthaven actually has... considering that part of the reason it's in this whole mess is that it supposedly does not have the rights to any of these copyrights. Furthermore, Righthaven boss Steve Gibson, along with Raisha "Drizzle" Y. Gibson (I have no idea) have been told to appear before the court on January 5th to provide testimony under oath concerning Righthaven's assets -- or face contempt charges. It's worth noting that part of the reason for the court's decision in the first document is the failure of Righthaven to file any response at all to the request, which has become par for the course for the company. Makes you wonder if the Gibsons will actually show up on January 5th...

from the pr-of-no-matter dept

This is no surprise given the RIAA's previous statements and actions, but it's now official. The RIAA has filed an amicus brief, along with a motion for leave to file the brief, since Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza, refused to allow the amicus brief. Both filings are embedded below (thanks to a few of you for sending these over). As expected, the filing, from both the RIAA and the AAP, argues that the court erred in even deciding the fair use issue, once it had decided that RIghthaven had no standing. Basically, the RIAA really, really, really wants this fair use ruling off the books. To be fair, I can see their overall argument here. If Righthaven has no standing, then should the court even consider the specific issues? But, that said, if the court does decide to do so, is that really so harmful? It's still making a ruling based on the same basic info, and just clarifying the details, should the "rightful" copyright holder seek to take on the same lawsuit. In this case, the court accomplishes a key point: making it clear that such an effort would waste the court's time. That seems like a reasonable move. Either way, this looks pretty silly from the RIAA's standpoint. They're so afraid of a ruling that allows fair use that they're willing to get into bed with Righthaven.